Order This revision is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai, under section 255 (1), Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: That on 12.2. 1979 at about 1.20 p.m. opposite of Harijan Colony, Kezhuvanthitittai at the main road, the accused Gopalakrishna Pillai drove the lorry TNK 2565 from north to south at a great speed rashly and negligently without blowing horn and dashed against the deceased school going girl. Vijayakumar, who was proceeding on the left side of the road to her school by hitting her with the front wheel of the lorry, as a result of which the said girl fell down and caught inside the front right wheel of the lorry and thereafter the lorry was stopped at a distance of 85 feet away from the place of impact on account of the noise raised by the witnesses Rajaiah, Sundaresan, Thangayyan and others. The deceased was found dead on the right side of the rear wheel. The omentum of the deceased was protruding and the left thigh was found fractured and there was profuse bleeding in the nostrile and mouth. P. W. 1 reported the matter to Kuzhithurai Police and his statement, Exhibit P. 1. was recorded and a case was registered in Cr. No. 168 of 1979 and investigation and after observing all usual formalities and procedures charge-sheet was filed. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses and filed 3 exhibits. P. W. 1 to 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 4, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, inspected the vehicle involved in the accident and issued the certificate. Exhibit P. 2 to the effect that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle, P. W. 5, the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and issued the post-mortem certificate. Exhibit P. 3, has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and heamarrhage due to the injuries sustained by her by being ran over by a fast moving lorry about 20 to 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. The Investigating Officer was not examined as he was not present in Court evidence of the prosecution was closed. 3. The Investigating Officer was not examined as he was not present in Court evidence of the prosecution was closed. 3. The accused when examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code has denied the prosecution evidence and examined one witnesses, D. W. 1 on his side has stated that the victim girl crossed the road and at that time she was hit by the mudguard of the front right wheel of the lorry and caught under the lorry and she was dragged to a distance of 35 feet. 4. The trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the evidence of eye witnesses, P. Ws. 1 to 3 is mutually contradictory, that the investigating officer was not examined as a witness on the side of the prosecution in spits of sufficient opportunity was given to him and that the evidence of D. W. 1 is natural and acceptable. 5. Mr. V. Gopinath learned Counsel for the revision petitioner (P.W.1) mainly contended that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 in cogent convincing and acceptable, that the trial Court, erred in rejecting the same as mutually contradictory, and that the trial Court, which has granted four adjournments for securing D.W. 1 erred in closing the prosecution by not taking coercive steps for examining the Investigating Officer. He also submitted that the trial Court without discussing the evidence of D. W. 1 erred in simply holding that the said evidence is natural and acceptable. He further contended that while the accused himself has not stated in his section 313, Criminal Procedure Code statement that the occurrence took place in the manner spoken to by D.W. 1 his evidence ought not to have been accepted. According to the learned Counsel, D.W. 1 has stated that the road at the place of occurrence is a straight one and hence. If proper care had been taken by the accused, he could have avoided the accident and that, in any event the order of acquittal is perverse and illegal and the failure to examine the Investigating Officer has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 6. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner took me through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 6. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner took me through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. It is seen from the records that on 23-12-1980, the learned Magistrate has closed the evidence of prosecution and ordered further proceedings on the ground that the witness was not present and the summons issued to the witness was not returned. Therefore the case was adjourned for questioning the accused twice and later adjourned for production of the defence witnesses for a number of times. The trial Court also acquitted the accused on the ground of failure of the prosecution to examine the investigating officer. It is not disputed that this is a case under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code on the charge-sheet filled by the police. 7. A Full Bench of this Court in State v. Veerappan State v. Veerappan (198C) L.W. (Crl.) 18: I.L.R. (1983) 3 Mad. 245: (1980) T.L.N.J. 162: A.I.R. 1980 Mad 260, has held as follows: “In almost all the decisions, in which it has been hold that an acquittal of the accused on the ground that the prosecution did not produce the witnesses was improper, the court have pointed out that (the duty to summon the witnesses in the course of the trial, is that of the Magistrate of the court concerned, and that the entire responsibility of production of witnesses cannot be saddled on the prosecution and a duty is also imposed upon the court for enforcing the attendance of witnesses by process provided in the Code) and it is the duty of the Court to issue coercive process if in spite of summons served on the witnesses, the witnesses do not appear before the Court and the prosecution fails to produce the witnesses as directed. We are in respectful agreement with that view in so far as it expressions the duty of the Magistrate of the Court.” Finally, the Full Bench has held that (only in case the presence of the witnesses, in spite of the coercive steps taken by the Court, could not be secured and the prosecution, either an account of the pronounced negligence, or recalcitrance does not produce the witnesses, then the Court, being left with no other alternative would be justified in acquitting the accused for want of evidence to prove the case). In Marappa Gounder v. Venkatachalam Marappa Gounder v. Venkatachalam (1983) L.W. (Crl.) 1 Ratnavel Pandian, J. held in a similar cases that (the trial Court ought not to have closed the prosecution without taking coercive steps to secure the Investigating Officer. 8. Further (the trial Court has failed to consider the material circumstances, viz., the road in question as the place of occurrence is a straight one and the victim girl was caught under the wheels of the lorry and dragged to a distance of 85’ and also the medical evidence. (The trial Court has also not given any reason for accepting the evidence of D.W. 1 and has failed to consider the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 in the proper perspective). On a perusal of the judgement of the Court below, I find that (there is lack of judicial approach to the matter and this is a case of non-application of mind on the part of the court below). Further, the judgment of the Court below consists of faulty reasoning and the material evidence had not been considered and it has been over-looked by the Court below, 9. The Supreme Court while considering the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the order of acquittal, has observed in Ayodhya Dube and others v. Ram Sumer Singh Ayodhya Dube and others v. Ram Sumer Singh (1981) (Supp) (S.C.C. 83) as follows: at page 84. “In our view the High Court has given adequate reasons for interfering with the acquittal and ordering a retrial of the appellants. We may add that the High Court also expressed the view that the instances mentioned by this Court in Chinaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. Chinaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. (1963) 3 S.C.R. 412 : A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1788. as justifying interference with order of acquittal in the exercise of revisional powers were illustrative and not exhaustive” The above decision is in all fours applicable to the facts of the instant case. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I set aside (the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and the case is remanded to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai, for fresh disposal in accordance with law and as directed above). 10. For the foregoing reasons, I set aside (the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and the case is remanded to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai, for fresh disposal in accordance with law and as directed above). The Court below will examine the Investigating Officers witnesses 16 and 7 cited in the change sheet taking coercive steps if necessary to secure their attendance for the purpose. The Court will dispose of the matter uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. The revision will stand allowed accordingly. R.S.R. ----- Case remanded for fresh disposal.